Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:18AM
from the stop-or-I'll-beep dept.

XueCast writes "A few days ago, the New York Police Department, one of the largest police forces in the US, announced that they are planning to make New York greener by replacing their gasoline motorcycle fleet with the super-quiet and energy efficient electric scooters from Vectrix.
NYPD said that they will first road test four electric scooters from the Rhode Island-based electric vehicle manufacturer next month, and if the road test is a success, NYPD said that they plan to order more electric scooters from Vectrix to replace their less-than-green motorcycle fleet."

Well the blog and the headline are all screwy...this is a trial, and they are not thinking about replacing their motorcycle fleet, but their gas scooter fleet. They have a ton of those things. original source [newsday.com] (new window)

They aren't replacing Goldwings (which is good because a scooter that isn't even freeway legal is no replacement for a Goldwing). These scooters are replacing Piaggio and Yamaha scooters. In other words, they are spending $11K a pop to replace scooters that probably get between 60 and 80 mpg and they are trying to write it off as being "green" instead of just ridiculously wasteful.

Electric vehicles just aren't terribly practical yet, and replacing the most fuel efficient part of the fleet with something

Since when were police supposed to be intimidating? They are supposed to be public servants that you can trust and feel comfortable around, not some militant force that will shoot you because you look at them wrong. Unfortunately this isn't the case in many places and your post validates how people (rightfully) perceive them.

They are supposed to be public servants that you can trust and feel comfortable around,

Very well said. But it is also worth noting that to be effective at their jobs, police must also be respected by the public. Unfortunately a (growing?) segment of the population has little respect for concepts such as law and order and societal stability. They do respect the force of a gun, however, and as such a certain amount of perceived intimidation is useful.

Unfortunately a (growing?) segment of the population has little respect for concepts such as law and order and societal stability. They do respect the force of a gun, however, and as such a certain amount of perceived intimidation is useful.

While I agree completely with the gist of what you're saying, I would phrase it a little differently.

People are losing what little respect they once had for each other and for themselves, such respect being the foundation of law and order and societal stability; and they are now more and more turning to (and bowing to) the use of force instead, where in more civilized times their respect for each other or for themselves would have prevented them from turning to (or bowing to) such shows of force.

People are losing what little respect they once had for each other and for themselves, such respect being the foundation of law and order and societal stability; and they are now more and more turning to (and bowing to) the use of force instead, where in more civilized times their respect for each other or for themselves would have prevented them from turning to (or bowing to) such shows of force.

People have been repeating that mantra since time immemorial.

When the USA turns into a failed state [wikipedia.org] like Sudan or Chad, where warlords & tribal leaders are fighting for control, then maybe you'll have something to complain about.

Agreed. Every generation thinks the next one will be the end of civilization. There are some great quotes from ancient Greeks to the affect.

When the USA turns into a failed state like Sudan or Chad, where warlords & tribal leaders are fighting for control, then maybe you'll have something to complain about.

This is crap. The "we're not as bad as China" has never eld any water. You can always point to someone worse, but that in no way mitigates how bad things are in a given place and we should always be looking to make things better by pointing out what is wrong and trying to correct it. Trying to excuse problems by pointing to others is a logical fallacy.

Crime rates have been trending downwards for quite some time now. The only thing that's been trending upwards are arrests for drug violations.

Crime statistics aren't too meaningful by themselves because so many things are crimes, including things we all do (speeding, swearing in public, having sex when not married). Laws are enforced or not and that can significantly influence the "crime rate." What I care more about are violent crime rates, since these are the real, serious offenses. Violent crime rates started going up in 2005, and have increased significantly in both 2006 and 2007 according to the FBI. It is disturbing as a societal trend but it actually fits with sociologists predictions. The strongest correlation with violent crime is wealth disparity. Wealth disparity has been increasing in the US, with the middle class shrinking, the upper class staying about the same size, but becoming richer, and the lower class growing. This trend boomed in about 2001, and after about the usual 5 year lag, violent crime rates have begun to boom as well.

You know what I find really sad? One of the most effective programs to reduce wealth disparity is socialized healthcare. Health care costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US and costs of health care are a significant expense for the poor. Despite the clear statistical indications that this would lower crime rates, not a ingle politician on either side of the debate has had the balls to bring this topic up. They think anything that is a complex causality is beyond the comprehension of the voters, and they're probably right.

As to the original topic, respect for the police and the laws. Just the other day the cops started following a car I was in, then pulled us over when we tried to pull into our driveway. They claimed it was because our muffler sounded "a bit loud" but why then would they follow us around, through several turns before pulling us over? It was bullshit. They weren't trying to enforce a law, they were trying to pull people over in the hopes they could bust us for something. Previous to their following us, they were speeding, and changed lanes three times without using an indicator. When the police don't respect the laws or obey them, it erodes one's respect for both the police and the laws. When absurdly stupid laws are still on the books and occasionally enforced at the whim of those with power, it erodes one's respect for the laws.

I know an old, retired officer who is proud of the fact that he never broke any laws the entire time he was a cop. I know a dozen people who are cops today and every one brags about abusing their authority in a "funny" way and the fact that they can get away with breaking the laws whenever they want. My brother used to be a cop. One day he was puled over for speeding in his private car and when the cop saw who it was, he just chatted wit him and let him go, with no mention of the speeding. I'd say their is a trend towards lack of respect for police and laws in the US, and it is very justified by our current laws, enforcement practices, and police hiring practices. 90% of

PPL are losing respect for the police, not for law and order. They would very much like to see it. The problem is that we have too many corrupt police, combined with police brutality. Even in the gangs, they know that they can buy more and more cops. And half of those that they can not buy, will beat them if given a chance.

As to the gun, the vast majority do not respect it. They fear it. That is two very different concepts. It is also part of the reason why more and more criminals are getting bigger guns.

Well, I imagine that for a cop, intimidation is like his service revolver. It's there for him to use, but he's not supposed to make a habit of it.

By giving somebody a nightstick and a gun, you are presupposing there are circumstances in which he'll use them, rather than ordinary persuasion. If the moral imperative is to do your job with the least force possible, then intimidation fits right between reasoned persuasion and beating or shooting people. Saying cops should never intimidate members of the public is one of those things that sounds right, but you have to examine the alternatives in any particular situation.

If the imperative is to protect the public safety with the least force, then using intimidation where a lesser alternative is available is like drawing and firing a gun when there isn't a life at stake, only to a lesser degree. It is true that the public should not live in continual fear of the police, but occasional fear is not so terrible, provided that the police remain servants of the public. It's one thing to feel fear when you are speeding and see a cop parked on the side of the highway; it's something that either you can live with, or which you should change by voting in politicians who will raise the speed limit. It's another thing to be afraid that every time you talk to a police officer you might be "disappeared". Just because the situations feel somewhat alike doesn't mean they are alike.

How one looks at that equipment is going to depend on how they perceive the police. When I'm near a cop, I trust that person in general to use the equipment in a manner consistent with my safety, so long as I'm not attacking him or someone else. It gives me a sense of protection.However, other people (including people in my own family) view cops as just looking for a reason to write them up, and see the equipment as a method of intimidation. Most cops that I talk to are happy to help and joined the force

I've done a demo ride on one of these scooters. It has a 27 hp motor and accelerates as quickly as a 400cc motor scooter like a Suzuki Burgman. It even felt like the electronics were limiting torque off the line to help with smooth starts. Range is still limited at about 45 mi in city driving, and it's not suited for patrolling highways with a 62 mph top speed. If the NYPD could live with the limited range, this scooter would work fine in Manhattan.

Well, as a human I'm not especially pointed, in fact I'm rather rounded in places, and last I checked it was indeed me that ran my mouth. I'd hardly delegate the task to anyone else, all those nerve endings and all, it could get messy.

Why spend $11,000 on new motorcycles when that sort of investment in more efficient police cars would have a much greater environmental impact? (Not to mention savings at the pump) Traditional motorcycles don't use that much gas, and can easily get 2-3 times the mpg of a car. Halving the energy consumption of a motorcycle is nowhere near as interesting as halving the energy consumption of a car.

The problem is not that motorcycles are not very efficient mpg wise, it's that they don't have catalytic converters. Even though they are very fuel efficient, they still manage to produce more toxins into the atmosphere than cars.

It's generally not considered a huge deal since the ratio of motorcycles to cars on the road is rather low, but if a fleet of bikes can be replaced, it might make a difference.

you're joking, right?how about comparing it with a car of similar performance?

never mind that is uses less road space than a car (1/2?), and it needs to be on the road for less time because it doesn't get stuck in traffic (as much).

Of course, some motorcycles can get mpgs that are around or even exceed 300mpg - though, AFAICT, not production and IMO not particularly interesting to buy - perhaps it wouldn't look out of place in California. Someone here claims 400mpg : http://www.suzukicycles.org/high_milage_ [suzukicycles.org]

An average bike does 0-60 in about 5 seconds. My camaro could do that and still hit 30mpg on a good day and it weighed 1600kg. How can a 160kg bike of the same performance only get less than twice the mpg? Sorry , something doesn't add up.

A vehicle such as a bike that is that light with a cross sectional area that small should have far far better mpg than perhaps 50% more than a car weighing 10 times more and 4 or 5 times the frontal area (and hence air resistance). The fact that bikes don't says a lot about their inefficient (and torque-free) engines.

For internal combustion engines, efficiency scales with size. Bigger engines therefore tend to be more efficient than smaller engines of similar design. Then, of course, you run into the maximum theoretical efficiency of a gasoline engine which is quite low to begin with: About 30% or so if memory serves.

OK, so I don't understand what you're trying to prove.You say that an average bike is as good performance as your camaro (not a particularly valid comparison, but it seems to be in the bike's favour, so never mind), and yet the bike gets much better efficiency (typically in excess of 40mpg, compared to your quoted 30mpg). I don't think the relationship is supposed to be arimetic but geometric, so that's somewhere near what I would expect.

Are you trying to suggest that removing two wheels from your camaro wo

Average bike does 0 - 60 somewhere closer to 4 seconds. Your average sportbike does it in 3.2 seconds, with some (traction limited) getting closer to 2.9 seconds. Most motorcycle magazines stopped using the 0 - 60 because the difference between motorcycles were so small in that range.The 1/4 mile is the current measurement for acceleration. Even a rather large Harley will do the 1/4 in 13 - 14 seconds. Most sport-tourers do it in 12 seconds, and your average sportbike will be anywhere from low 10s to 11s.

An average bike does 0-60 in about 5 seconds. My camaro could do that and still hit 30mpg on a good day and it weighed 1600kg. How can a 160kg bike of the same performance only get less than twice the mpg? Sorry , something doesn't add up.

A vehicle such as a bike that is that light with a cross sectional area that small should have far far better mpg than perhaps 50% more than a car weighing 10 times more and 4 or 5 times the frontal area (and hence air resistance). The fact that bikes don't says a lot about their inefficient (and torque-free) engines.

Have you been on a modern motorcycle? In any case, I disagree with your assessment -- it sounds like you're ignoring real math here. Where do you get your average 0-60 figures? I'd estimate that most 500-1000cc bikes get to 60 in closer to 3.5-4 seconds. My 25-year-old 500cc Honda cruiser can scoot to 60 in less than 5 seconds. Even modern power cruisers (yes, more than 1000 cc) tend to get up to the sixty-mark in under 5 seconds (according to this article [popularmechanics.com], HD V Rod hits 60 in 4.26 seconds, Honda VT

They still have rubbish mpg. How can a vehicle that weighs only slighly more than a large man manage only about 40mpg?? Its farcical. If it did the same mpg per kilo as a car motorbikes should be hitting 300mpg easy.

Piaggio scooters get between 50-80mpg according to the website.While I'm sure the Harlies the NYPD uses are not the most efficient bikes, I'm sure they are more efficient than the Dodge Chargers (12-15mpg) or Ford Crown Victorias (15-18mpg IIRC).

How can a vehicle that weighs only slighly more than a large man manage only about 40mpg??

Easily [totalmotorcycle.com] when the engine size is that of an average econobox. I can't imagine the need for a 1.8l bike, but still in contrast to their fleet autos, the full sized bikes are an improvement.

As an interesting aside, check out the all-electric scooters sold by "Yo Bykes" [induselectrans.com] (ugh!) in India.

The Yo Smart [induselectrans.com] model sells for about $800, and does ~75km/40mi per charge.While its performance is fairly anemic, it is cheap, small, and convenient enough for short distances. Imagine the benefit to the environment (and money saved!) if more people started using these electric bikes/scooters instead of their big-ass cars and SUVs for short errands.

Yeah. Interestingly, they've only artificially throttled the top speed so that according to Indian road regulations, this will not be considered a motor vehicle, and will not require a license, registration, or road tax.Yo has another model called Yo Speed [induselectrans.com] that has much more sensible specifications. This one is a lot sturdier and heavier, has a top speed of 45kmh/30mph (again artificially throttled) with a payload capacity of 130kg, which is quite decent!

its on all their street bikes.The issue in NY is that you cannot use bikes year round.

If you want them to be really environmentally considerate let them bring horses back to the whole city!

My only beef with being friendly to the environment, if these vehicles truly are from manufacturing to disposal, is that they make it seem all so nice. The key is that city officials are the ones raking in the glory for their actions while its the tax payers who should get credit. It is very easy to be magnanimous on so

I was thinking that if I went around the police departments and shot the transformers with something so they didn't work anymore, Would they have enough charge left on their super segway to chase me down after robbing a bank?

Maybe they should use pedal bikes. Quite a few UK police forces tried equipping their police officers with bicycles which seemed quite effective. No-one could get away from them on foot but it didn't stop them from going through pedestrian areas. And they were certainly more approachable than police officers in cars or on motorbikes.

Most beat officers don't take suspects to jail. They call a car from the district who picks up the suspect for processing. It gives another witness to the event and taking a beat officer off the road leaves a large gap in the police presence.

You can always tell when there is real trouble by the number of cars. 1 police vehicle is normally a citation; 2+ vehicles is generally an arrest of one sort or another.

They do have pedal bike cops, and they've been really effective patrolling the grounds of 1960's-era "tower-in-a-park" housing projects. I've seen NYPD motorcycles in two places - motorcade/parade route duty, and highway patrol (NYC has over 100 miles of limited-access highways within city limits - thanks, Mr. Moses!).

This is NOT exactly the vehicle that one would really consider for any sort of high speed chase.

If I were a motorcycle cop, I would not want to be involved in any high-speed chases. You want to be safe within a cage for that type of work.

On the other hand, it seems silly to replace motorcycles (already quite fuel-efficient due to their light weight) while leaving gas-guzzling cars and SUVs in the fleet. Why not replace all patrol cars with hybrids? They can run on battery around town, and switch over t

On the other hand, it seems silly to replace motorcycles (already quite fuel-efficient due to their light weight) while leaving gas-guzzling cars and SUVs in the fleet. Why not replace all patrol cars with hybrids? They can run on battery around town, and switch over to ICE for the high-speed chases (obviously you'd want something beefier than a Prius).

Somebody I work with recently bought a Prius. He says it uses less fuel than his motorbike.

My mom's Prius uses less gas than my Harley does. I get between 40 & 45 mpg depending on how I ride and whether or not I have a passenger but she routinely gets upwards of 70 mpg in that thing.

Someone above was dogging the performance of Harleys, and compared to sport bikes I'd say it's justified, but there are very few cars where I live that have anything even close in terms of acceleration, and not just from a stop - my bike will go from 60 to 80 mph in a startlingly short amount of time. My friend

On the other hand, it seems silly to replace motorcycles (already quite fuel-efficient due to their light weight) while leaving gas-guzzling cars and SUVs in the fleet. Why not replace all patrol cars with hybrids? They can run on battery around town, and switch over to ICE for the high-speed chases (obviously you'd want something beefier than a Prius).

According to Piaggio [piaggiousa.com] their scooters get 50 to 80mpg rather than a Prius which according to toyota.com gets 46mpg. I can't say which Piaggio scooters the NYPD are using, for all I know they could be using the 2cycle version.

I also read they are using 2006 Dodge Chargers which get 13/18mpg and mostly ye old Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor common among law enforcement and not much better on fuel.

Why not replace all patrol cars with hybrids?

So in terms of raw fuel use, you are likely correct that addressing the gas guzzlers would likely result i

Kind of reminds me of a story my dad told me a few years ago. He was working with a state park on getting their budget set, and the park rangers wanted to get "high speed pursuit vehicles", and he said they were unnecessary. They asked, if we don't have high speed pursuit vehicles, how will we engage in high speed pursuits. His response, radio ahead and have the gate shut, it's not like there is another way out. From my experience, in NYC I don't think high speed pursuits are a huge concern.

Helicopters are insanely expensive to purchase and operate. On second thought, put one into service with a rack of Hellfire missiles and we could apply a little negative reinforcement to the idiots that endanger everyone by running from the police.

I don't know about in NY but in the UK rush-hour a motorbike can travel through city-centre traffic at four times the speed of a car. Read 30mph average instead of 7.
Don't underestimate the usefulness of going through narrow spaces either, many crimes have planned getaway routes that can only be negotiated by a small car, with a small clearance that you would only take at speed if you are not bothered about scraping the sides.
I have also heard it said that if a motorcyclist refuses to stop it is almost impossible to give chase in a car, if there is no motorcycle available they just take the numberplate and call round later, when the bike is almost certainly "reported as stolen".

Electric scooters are great for taking out pedestrians Carmageddon style. Those pesky petrol based ones make too much noise and people don't step out in front of you. Helps too if you wear nice black leathers so as to reduce your visibility.

This might be ok for parking meter cops and purposes like that, but for regular law enforcement this is stupid. Police need decent equipment to be able to do their jobs effectively, and the specs of the bike in the article are an absolute joke compared to a real motorcycle. If police have to respond to a situation where someones life may be in danger, I doubt that the victim really cares how "green" the cops vehicles are while they're waiting for them to show up.

Public safety should never be something that gets compromised by poorly thought-out "green" initiatives.

Motorcycle police aren't there for high speed chases. It is too dangerous to the officer to do any kind of chase due to the instant death any wreck would bring.

Getting around in New York is slow and takes a lot of corners so the specs on the bike seem to be on target to the top speed they would get on a regular motorcycle in that huge city. I think their testing will prove that the bikes will be just fine for the job.

The electric scooters are replacing non-electric scooters. They are not replacing non-electric motorcycles.There are police on foot, police on segways, police on bicycles, police on horseback, police on motor-cycles, police in patrol cars, police in interceptor cars, police in trucks, and, yes, police on scooters.

What I think is stupid, is being assumptive of the role involved and the needs without doing so much as actually even reading the article first.

Yeah, they're big motorcycles. They only get 45 mpg in the city, and that's observed fuel economy, not some Science-Fiction EPA rating.

So, let's replace the most fuel efficient motor vehicle the NYPD has in the fleet because it's "less than green" and let's keep those cars, trucks, vans, helicopters, and who-knows-what else. You know, for the children.

So, let's replace the most fuel efficient motor vehicle the NYPD has in the fleet because it's "less than green" and let's keep those cars, trucks, vans, helicopters, and who-knows-what else. You know, for the children.

You have a plan for an electric helicopter we should know about?

A patent on a very inexpensive yet high capacity battery that will out-range and out-perform gasoline in cars, trucks, and vans?

So, you would prefer they do nothing to help, since they can't do EVERYTHING just yet? Always attack

With a maxium speed of 60 and a range of 68 miles at 25 mph what's the point? Either they are for chasing pedestrians or motorcycle escorts. The speed is only adequate for city streets for short trips. I'm assuming they are intended for traffic and parking tickets and are more a replacement for for the old Cushman type vehicles. They are hardly a replacement for motorcycles. They could servie some of the purposes that mounted officers did but they lack the high visibility that was a benificial feature of being on horseback. I really wish the article had gone into the intended use because it is a puzzle.

Given the population density of New York isnt it time to setup city wide (or at least the financial district wide) people mover belts like you find at the nicer International Airports (Dubai and Frankfurt spring to mind). These would be hyper efficient as only the thing which needs to be moved i.e. a person weighing 200 pounds instead of moving a big iron box weighing tons aka a car.These used to be a staple of futuristic SF stories - wonder why it never caught on - the technology is definitely there(in airports)

On a side note if people are using conveyor belts the cops dont need motorcycles to catch perps - just get on the hyperfast conveyor belt lane reserved for emergencies.

Police departments usually only sell a vehicle when it's worn out. A friend was interested in getting a police surplus Harley-Davidson, but he said that the bikes that he looked at were in pretty bad shape.

1.)
these Motorcycles are not "green", as long as the power to charge them
is generated by non-green powerplants.

You've exposed the most fraudulent part of the greenies' movement. Recharging batteries requires electricity, which in the US, is derived primarily from burning coal, which is worse ecologically than burning gasoline. As long as the Greenies keep pushing fake green agendas on us like electric cars but at the SAME TIME keep protesting nuclear power, this will never be a good solution.

Recharging batteries requires electricity, which in the US, is derived primarily from burning coal, which is worse ecologically than burning gasoline.

I bet you can't back that up with any facts. A modern coal burning power plant is probably 50% efficient or better and cleans its exhaust. A gas engine in a vehicle is about 20% efficient (ignoring the transportation costs of getting the fuel to the vehicle) and does very little cleaning of the exhaust.

Here's something to chew on, and this is just in the context of powering hydrogen cells, which is arguably more efficient than plugging a car straight into an AC outlet.

According to Southern California Edison, the electricity needed per mile for passenger cars is at least 0.46 kilowatt-hour. For the whole U.S. vehicle fleet, that works out to 1.16 trillion kilowatt-hours. You'll need 32 quads of coal, which is twice the energy actually consumed in 2000 with gaso

Here's something to chew on, and this is just in the context of powering hydrogen cells, which is arguably more efficient than plugging a car straight into an AC outlet.

Such a claim is only arguable by someone woefully ignorant of the facts (and the laws of thermodynamics).

The fuel cycle in that case (electricity -> electrolysis -> hydrogen -> fuel cell -> electricity) is only about 25% efficient. Did you really think that the fuel cycle would have efficiency greater than 100%, and how else wou

Apparently you havent been paying attention...Many of the "Greenies" have been switching their stance on nuclear power over the past decade because they are realizing that the threat from nuclear power is nothing compared to the reality of global warming.

Look around. Their are many plans for nuclear power plants on the books now and the protests are NOTHING compared with what they were in the 70's and 80's. Oh sure, there are some who wont come around, but thats always the case.

Disclaimer: IAAEVE (I am an eletric vehicle engineer). It sounds like you've never even driven an EV.

You've exposed the most fraudulent part of the greenies' movement. Recharging batteries requires electricity, which in the US, is derived primarily from burning coal, which is worse ecologically than burning gasoline.

Burning coal to power EVs is a pretty stupid solution, and I don't think anyone is actually advocating that, but it is absolutely an improvement over burning gasoline. Your assertion is well documented as totally false, yet it's constantly repeated. You really should do your own research on this, but here's a whitepaper from Tesla Motors [teslamotors.com] for starters. It's a pretty fair analysis of the relative efficiencies of various propulsion systems. It does cheat a little by assuming natural gas generation for electricity, but it's obvious from the numbers that--even from coal--EVs are a significant win in terms of reducing pollution and CO2 emissions.

You can substitute just about any EV for Tesla's Roadster -- they're all exceptionally efficient, at under 300 AC watthours per mile. Yes, I'm an electric vehicle engineer.

As long as the Greenies keep pushing fake green agendas on us like electric cars but at the SAME TIME keep protesting nuclear power, this will never be a good solution.

Nuclear power is a fantastic option. Between nuclear, wind, and hydro, more than half of California's energy is pollution- and CO2-free. Electricity is the ultimate flex fuel -- you can generate it from coal, nuclear, or solar panels on your roof.

You spewed some further misinformation further down -- I'll reply to that later on.